POWs vanish amid the war on nasty images

By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in WashingtonMarch 25 2003

The pictures Americans were not allowed to see ... five captured US soldiers on Iraqi TV. Photo: AFP

It was the most dramatic news of the day, if not the war. Twelve United States military personnel missing in action suddenly appeared on Iraqi television. Five, including a woman, were clearly prisoners. Seven were dead, some possibly shot in the head.

Yet while the images were flashed around the world, most Americans did not see them. The US media censored the story after warnings, threats and exhortations from the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, who said the Geneva Convention makes it illegal for prisoners of war to be "shown and pictured and humiliated".

And, he added, "needless to say, television networks that carry such pictures are, I would say, doing something that's unfortunate".

The major US networks, including the wall-to-wall war station CNN, and even the public broadcasting network bowed to Mr Rumsfeld's pressure and suppressed the video.

CNN timidly ran a single freeze-frame from the Al-Jazeera Arab station with nothing that could identify any of the soldiers or the anguish of their capture.");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

At US central command's forward headquarters in Qatar, the deputy commander, General John Abizaid, jumped on the reporter from Al-Jazeera, saying: "I'm very disappointed that you would portray those pictures of our servicemen. I saw that, and I would ask others not to do that."

At a decisive time for the country and the media, the television companies caved in to government pressure.

The Department of Defence asked that no news organisation air or publish "recognisable images or audio recordings that identify POWs" or use their names until their families were notified.

But the major outlets did not even run the images with the faces obscured, as many foreign media did.

It was a powerful insight into the enormous sway that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon exert over the media's war coverage. All stations that morning were in intense competition for Mr Rumsfeld and other major figures to appear.

Before the capture of the POWs, the media had little hesitation in running graphic pictures of surrendering, captured, dead or dying Iraqi soldiers, usually accompanied by US statements that large numbers of Iraqi troops were unwilling to fight for Saddam Hussein.

But the censorship of the POWs highlighted starkly what is and is not acceptable news on the war.

Virtually uncovered in the media are Iraqi civilian casualties. While all the networks ran the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad, scant coverage was given to the wounded. This was despite public statements from the International Red Cross giving figures for the injured.

And while Al-Jazeera has cameras in Basra where Iraqi casualties are more apparent, little of this footage is seen in the US.

The US networks run acres of material from "embedded" correspondents on ships as they fire off Tomahawks, from air bases waving off fighters, and from infantry forces firing off artillery. But there is little commentary or discussion of what happens when this ordinance hits.

Most seem to accept Mr Rumsfeld's line that "precision-guided" bombs do not hurt Baghdad civilians. "It looks like it's a bombing of a city, but it isn't," he said. "It is a bombing of military targets, very precisely, and regime targets."

But this emphasis on war game imagery is not serving Americans well. Outside the US, pictures from Al-Jazeera of injured Iraqis, burnt children and crying mothers are being transmitted throughout the Arab world and much of Europe.

If the conflict intensifies, this will increase. And Americans will have little idea why the war is instilling such antagonism in the Arab world.

In fairness to the Pentagon, even their officials baulk at the gap between some US media and the realities of war.

On Saturday, Mr Rumsfeld's chief public relations officer, Victoria Clarke, scolded a reporter who asked when the next "show" of shock and awe bombing would begin.

"It's not a show, it's not a game," she replied tartly, "And I just think people should be really, really careful with the words."